as someone who survived on tips for 2 1/2 years while studying comp sci, you're missing one key detail. tips introduce a situation where harder/faster-paced workers get a higher pay per hour than workers with average productivity. a pizza driver that optimizes their routes and memorizes stop light patterns in their delivery zone will get more deliveries per hour than that of a new hire. so even though they work the s…
There are plenty of non tipping ways to reward hard workers. Managers can track performance and reward it through bonuses and/or wage increases.
ive seen that work at smaller size companies (sub 2000 employees) but with a caveat - it causes some political stress for the recipient. jealous teammates are less likely to work with you after you get a bonus.
and FAANG size companies dont have random bonuses for frontlines; stack ranking is supposed to reward top performers, but when manager kpi's conflict with work that benefits the customer experience, managers will intentionally rank the best performers as average.
You’re defining that in the simplest possible way, ie if the stars aligned a man could, in theory, impregnate thousands of women. In reality, the factors that limit a man’s potential mates are equally real. The population’s sex ratio is no less a biological reality than the structure of a reproductive system. So a woman’s reproductive value fluctuates depending on circumstances, but remains similar to a man’s under m…
Genetical evidence shows that twice as many women as men successfully reproduced during the history of our species. And if it wasn't for a period of massive population increase combined with monogamy, that ratio would probably be maybe five to one or more. The sex ratio of children is hard coded genetically at 50/50 for pretty much all mammals, since any deviance would be corrected back to 50/50 within a couple of ge…
When we say reproductive value, we’re applying a supply demand metaphor from economics to each sex, then comparing their values in a hypothetical underlying currency. Supply and demand fluctuate but, as you said, we are born in about a 50/50 ratio, so absent major upsets to the ratio post-birth like wars, we should expect there to be roughly one man for each woman. Then demand (for men) is the thing that must be low to reduce their value. But it would be a bit silly to say women just aren’t interested in men in general, so I have to assume your complaint is that women in aggregate don’t have equal demand for all men. We’re not talking about the reproductive value of men in general, nor about a biological process removed from society, but a social phenomenon wherein demand for men by women is distributed unevenly among them. An undesirable man might be said to have a low reproductive value and a desirable man a high one. In aggregate, it wouldn’t make sense to say men have a low reproductive value.
This is a common online trope, but has almost never been true for me when I’ve checked. (US domestic ~4 star hotels) Direct is more or at least equal to the aggregator prices.
Ah, never traveled to the US, my experience is from Europe, South America and Asia, could explain the difference :)
probably. I think the US aggregators force the hotels to not undercut them, via contract. probably a different setup elsewhere.
I don't know about the long term economic effects, but there are people who currently earn less than the subsistence amount who will be better off with UBI than without it.
I don't hope that this is a latent argument pro corporate slavery? Are you seriously proposing that we need people who are paid below subsistence? Or was this more an argument for ubi?
No, I'm saying that if everyone gets given $2000 each month and as a result everyone's wages are reduced by $2000 a month, most people will be unaffected. However, anyone who made less than $2000 a month before will get to quit their job and make more money than before UBI, so UBI wouldn't be useless in this scenario.